NCAA approves tougher sanctions -

the University of Miami's athletic department turned into a heap of rubble, and probably Chip Kelly being forced out at Oregon. Until then, this is just more of the same tough talk they spewed after USC and before Ohio (not to mention the Auburn non-ruling).

I have a tough time believing they will be tougher on schools, especially the big ones and mainly the SEC. It's about money and will always be about money.

Sure, they approved them, the question is whether their investigations will yield enough evidence that they'll ever feel comfortable in implementing them. I think the biggest problem is this:

"The committee on infractions could proceed under the new standards or could apply the penalties under the old standards, based on whatever is more beneficial to the institution," Strobel said.

They should be less concerned with what benefits the institution (which I take to mean the cheater, not the NCAA), and more concerned with justice.

I guess what I'm saying is I'd rather they use an unwarranted sledgehammer than a safe tack hammer.

The same teams will continue to cheat.

We are NOT kidding this time.  I know we've said before we're going to get tough and didnt but this tme we mean it.  No seriously...we MEAN it.   Tough, tough, tough are we.  You will not finder a tougher bunch of law-enforcing bad-guy busters than us.  We have laid down the law and God help the rule breaker that tries to step out of line.  We will come down hard....HARD we say...and show everybody that this time we arent fooling around.  If you're breaking rules.....hell if you're even thinking about breaking rules....well you better stop and think twice cause when it comes to cracking down on schools not doing what they should then look out cause the hammer is about to fall.

Wasn't there a story that was supposed to come out today about Auburn paying a current freshman?

New & Improved NCAA Banhammer:

I'm not kidding this time. I really will turn this car around.

I love the bit about tougher eligibilty requirements for freshmen and jucos and tying academic performance to postseason eligibility. You have to actually go to class and get good grades to play college sports, now, Georgetown basketball.

NCAA should crack down on recruiting violations more than anything else.  That's what really creates a competitive advantage.  Once someone is already at a school, I really don't care if they get a free meal or a free tattoo. Cam Newton gets a briefcase full of cash and the NCAA can't find anything?  Give me a break.  You can't convince me somebody not originally from Alabama wants to live and go to school in Auburn.

How many times has a northern school had a recruit ready to sign only to take a visit to some bum-phuck southern school and then miraculously commit.  How many ex-Auburn players have to admit to getting paid before the NCAA finally steps in?  And then naturally, teams like Michigan get busted for some BS practice time violation.

I don't buy it. they will never strike down a cash cow (I.e. Ohio,USC,bama,) no matter what they do. make college sports like the wild west and let everything go on. the sanctions is worth the risk of cheating. look around.

I remember the worst punishments when I was growing up weren't punishments at all. The worst was the guilt trip.

"We're not even really mad. We're just...just...disappointed in you. We thought you were better than this. Like we never had to worry about any of this stuff with you, but I guess we were wrong. You just need to understand that your actions hurt other people sometimes, and this time, you really hurt us."  

This has always been one of the most frustrating things about college sports to me and I hope this will stop or at least decrease the amount of cheating

Here is the NCAA's description  of the four-tier approach - (LINK)

One of the other things it outlines, as the ESPN article touches on, is how the process will work (or not) for cases currently in process. Among the purported enhancements, there is this:

"Increases the Division I Committee on Infractions from 10 to as many as 24 voting members from which smaller panels will be assembled to review cases more quickly and efficiently."

I would be interested to know exactly where they were going with this one in particular. The structure of this might be critical to what "quickly and efficiently" really means here. Would they actually take multiple cases under consideration, select panels to review them, and then they meet to report out? Will the panel of 24 (potential, of course) members break up a case and research individual charges within it? I was curious about this one because it seems like this is could be one of the potential weak links in the new structure, or at least a place where the waters could get muddied. 

One thing they are trying to abandon, per the article, is the "presumption of knowledge" when it comes to violations and instead focusing on responsibility, thereby allowing them to essentially pass judgment based on a specific bylaw. Supposedly, if I grasp the advertised ideal correctly,  the idea here is to do what they do to those of us in management - if someone under you is not performing or doing something "unethical" or "not in compliance", they come after you first and ask  why. If the answer is unsatisfactory, both (or all) are in trouble. It's a great notion, but I would like to be sure that those on the revise Committee On Infractions understood the philosophical shift implied here and could consistently apply such a thing. That, and actually did this in such a way that it would make a statement to others. 

The NCAA reminds me of that geeky college RA that always threatened to write people up and get them punished.  Threats are made and some people respect them enough to behave themselves afterward, but most people don't have enough respect for the person to stop breaking the rules and eventually someone goes too far and basically becomes a sacrificial lamb.

How the NCAA see's itself:

c

How everyone see's the NCAA:

NCAA Promises More Hot Air, More Saber Rattling

Rosenberg. Is he the guy that wrote that terribly researched book on Bo and Woody?